If you don't see it you must have some vision problems.
And no, Jack doesn't exactly play The Joker as himself, but as mentioned many times above, he does play him similarly to some of his other roles - such as The Shining - and the parallels are there to see.

But I myself have pointed out many similarities among both versions, even when the tones were quite different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

You're arguing semantics.

I'm arguing that we could find about the same distance between Jack and Romero than Jack and Ledger.

I have heard in this very forum people saying that Jack's Joker was Romero's Joker hyped up. As you say, it's really subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Along with changing his voice and his whole acting style and mannerisms. Every facet of him vanished into that role.

I can't say the same for Jack which is why I find Heath a more impressive Joker.

The change's impressive. But big part of that was make-up alone. And big actor-character change doesn't mean anything by itself regarding the peformance. Next actor to play Joker better be a short fat woman. If she manage to look, sound and act like a tall male Joker, then it'll be more impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Re-read my comments that you quoted and you'll see the answer to your question.

I never said once that the make up didn't help transform him. I said I didn't know how such a simple make up application caused such an effective transformation.

I misunderstood your words then. It sounded like you really didn't know that make-up can change your appearance in such a way that a pretty boy can look like a psycho. And he can become unrecognizable even if he doesn't move a muscle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Part of it, yes. Voice and performance also included.

The whole character, yes.

But if you're talking about unrecognizable like in how you cannot distinguish Ledger's face, that's make-up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Obviously I know they applied make up onto Heath. I said I don't know how such simple make up application was so effective in transforming him completely to look completely unrecognizable.

Because it was all smeared, had black messy circles around the eyes and that alone can make you look any face sinister. Plus we all have seen or imagined the classic psycho-clown ala John Wayne Gacy with the smeared make-up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Thanks for clarifying that Jack looking like Jack was done on purpose. It would be worse if they attempted to make him feel different and had failed.

I thought that was pretty well known.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

No, Jack had a Joker persona they wanted. Meaning similar style that he had done in previous movies like The Shining or The Witches of Eastwick. That kind of crazy quirky character you could see in his Joker performance.

You basically said the same as I did, but added "no" at the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Darn right. All credit to Will for physically altering himself and selling the performance, too. That is a mark of great acting than someone who supposedly already "had it inside them".

Physically altering himself and selling the performance are two completely different things. This other hypotetical beefed up actor I mentioned could have delivered a great acting. But, of course, we couldn't have admired how much he trained.

It's also a well known fact that Nicholson's performance was light years above Thurman's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

So they hired him based on his smile then?

I think I have mentioned many other factors they saw in Nicholson too many times in this very page to start mentioning them again.

All I said was that the make-up was designed to make the most of Nicholson's face, not to try to distort it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

His methods and energy level was different, but you could still see and hear Jack.

Which was the whole purpose of hiring him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Semantics. You're talking about a costume, not a performance.

I meant to talk about the whole thing actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

I never said they were against the rules, and citing previous pointless happenings doesn't negate the question of why someone would do it.

Plausible theory: The poster joined the forum back in November 2011. He probably wanted to say something about the subject and he looked for an already open thread about it before startying a new one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Eh I think you're easily fascinated lol

As I remember it was you who has gotten highly interested as to why this thread was bumped after so many years, not me. But then, this is like the umpteenth time this happens here at SHH, so I thought it was one of those things that wouldn't surprise anyone anymore no matter how odd could it look.

******************

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I've always thought Nicholson essentially played a heightened version of himself long before I saw TDK.

It's like what Dustin Hoffman said in the Actor's Studio interview. Something like "In the end, the only thing we actors gave is ourselves. There is nothing else."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

It was and is a very entertaining and appropriate performance but it wasn't the type of role in which the actor really transforms.

Nor it was meant to be. Jack was hired because he and the Joker's approach had many things in common, not because he was so different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

That's what Ledger did, regardless of the specific characterization. And the relatively minimal makeup used with Ledger I think is a great testament to that, because Nicholson was covered in makeup and still looked like himself (which again, isn't a bad thing).

I'm not sure what do you refer to as 'minimal,' but Ledger's make-up was not simple, as it might appear.

I'm not sure what do you refer to as 'minimal,' but Ledger's make-up was not simple, as it might appear.

It was minimal compared to Nicholson's. Ledger had the scars but it didn't alter his appearance totally, and the clown makeup was just clown makeup, and it was often rubbing off in the film. The point being that Ledger's own performance was the biggest thing that made him the Joker, not just the wardrobe.

If you don't see it you must have some vision problems.
And no, Jack doesn't exactly play The Joker as himself, but as mentioned many times above, he does play him similarly to some of his other roles - such as The Shining - and the parallels are there to see.

I watched The Shining yesterday in fact, and while I can see why they would choose Nicholson for Joker based on this performance, but I don't see any 'Joker' in 'Jack Torrance'. They are completely different characters. Ok, they are both homicidal maniacs, in their own way. But they are not completely the same, so I don't know what you mean by "parellels", maybe you can explain this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Plausible theory: The poster joined the forum back in November 2011. He probably wanted to say something about the subject and he looked for an already open thread about it before startying a new one.

So what if Nicholson wasn't as disguised as Ledger's Joker? The thing is he didn't need to. Nicholson naturally had a sinister look that was perfect for the role. As well as his natural devilish voice. Perhaps this is the reason everyone wanted him to play the Joker long before he agreed to the role. Everyone knew he was capable of playing a convincing psychopath that also had the perfect voice and look to go with it. Plus you can't go wrong with a comic accurate look.

__________________"I'm not in this business to protect the rules,﻿ I serve justice"

So what if Nicholson wasn't as disguised as Ledger's Joker? The thing is he didn't need to. Nicholson naturally had a sinister look that was perfect for the role. As well as his natural devilish voice. Perhaps this is the reason everyone wanted him to play the Joker long before he agreed to the role. Everyone knew he was capable of playing a convincing psychopath that also had the perfect voice and look to go with it. Plus you can't go wrong with a comic accurate look.

That's also what I'm saying - Jack Nicholson did change his voice. It's more subtle than what Ledger did but it's still there. You just need to hear the change from his more normal-sounding voice as Jack Napier to Joker.

In fact, I heard Ledger had to work hard to not sound like Jack Nicholson.

Jack Nicholson is my least favorite Joker. He didn't put much into his performance and he never sounded different when changed to Joker. He still was like Jack in a clown costume. I think he had a good laugh but that's all I liked about him.

I watched The Shining yesterday in fact, and while I can see why they would choose Nicholson for Joker based on this performance, but I don't see any 'Joker' in 'Jack Torrance'. They are completely different characters. Ok, they are both homicidal maniacs, in their own way. But they are not completely the same, so I don't know what you mean by "parellels", maybe you can explain this.

I actually found Jack much, much, MUCH more frightening in The Shining than in Batman, but I suppose that is because it's a horror film directed by Kubric no less. As for parallels, I think they pretty much speak for themselves. Just look at any scene where Jack is losing his knocker (such as when he's at the bar) and you can see certain facial expressions, mannerisms and such that are similar between both characters.

Now, I'm not arguing that Jack plays them the same, because he very clearly doesn't. But certainly there are more similarities than anything Heath had ever done before compared to his Joker, come to think of it, other than TDK, did Heath ever even play a villain?

Jack Nicholson is my least favorite Joker. He didn't put much into his performance and he never sounded different when changed to Joker. He still was like Jack in a clown costume. I think he had a good laugh but that's all I liked about him.

Heath was better.

That's your unqualified opinion. Don't try to present as fact.

Fact is, you can examine that he did two different performances (Jack Napier and Joker) in the same movie, so you can watch the movie and directly compare. If he played Joker the same as Jack Napier, I would agree with your opinion, but they are obviously different. In fact, the whole movie would not work if you didn't see a complete transformation from Jack Napier to Joker. Otherwise it would be Jack Napier wearing clown makeup, which is obviously not so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I actually found Jack much, much, MUCH more frightening in The Shining than in Batman, but I suppose that is because it's a horror film directed by Kubric no less. As for parallels, I think they pretty much speak for themselves. Just look at any scene where Jack is losing his knocker (such as when he's at the bar) and you can see certain facial expressions, mannerisms and such that are similar between both characters.

"Hi Lloyd. A little slow tonight isn't it?" I also got a Joker vibe from that scene, but I couldn't imagine his Joker doing the same thing. The Joker used more of a distinctive cackle, and his sense of humour wasn't like that. The Joker does it more sinister, while Jack Torrance is more crazy.

Quote:

Now, I'm not arguing that Jack plays them the same, because he very clearly doesn't. But certainly there are more similarities than anything Heath had ever done before compared to his Joker, come to think of it, other than TDK, did Heath ever even play a villain?

I've only seen him in like 3 other movies, so I don't know.

I'm just saying, he had the luxury of playing Joker and only Joker in The Dark Knight. Nicholson had to play two roles. So obviously he's not going to camp it up as Jack Napier or play a Jack Napier wearing clown makeup. He had to make each performance distinctive to show the transformation from Jack Napier to Joker.

Well, I'm a huge fan of Batman 1989, and I'm just tired of so many people saying that Ledger is the best Joker because he transformed into the role while Jack Nicholson was just playing himself. It's become like a popular opinion now. But there is not much to back it up.

Unqualified opinion? What qualification do I need to have that opinion, a degree from nerd college? You shouldn't be a hypocrite:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Jack Nicholson used to be the definitive Joker but now he's become very underrated.

Many people say he's just playing himself, which isn't a fair criticism. I thought the look, the laugh, the voice and the mannerisms were all Joker. Plus, he also had to play Jack Napier as well and make his performance different to that when he 'becomes' Joker. In that sense, he was good if not better than Ledger.

Your post is full of statements presented as fact especially your last line. You don't get your own set of rules especially for you.

Quote:

Fact is, you can examine that he did two different performances (Jack Napier and Joker) in the same movie, so you can watch the movie and directly compare. If he played Joker the same as Jack Napier, I would agree with your opinion, but they are obviously different. In fact, the whole movie would not work if you didn't see a complete transformation from Jack Napier to Joker. Otherwise it would be Jack Napier wearing clown makeup, which is obviously not so.

I have examined it and I don't see much of a difference. You see little glimpses of his Joker smile and laugh when he's Napier like when he's threatening the fat Cop in the alley. I think his Joker was Jack Napier on steroids.

Unqualified opinion? What qualification do I need to have that opinion, a degree from nerd college? You shouldn't be a hypocrite:

Your post is full of statements presented as fact especially your last line. You don't get your own set of rules especially for you.

I didn't say they were facts, but I am doing more to justify my opinion than just saying something like "this is the way it is", etc.

Quote:

I have examined it and I don't see much of a difference. You see little glimpses of his Joker smile and laugh when he's Napier like when he's threatening the fat Cop in the alley. I think his Joker was Jack Napier on steroids.

That's because they are the same character. I know, I said two characters, though duality is the theme here, so Jack Napier and Joker are two sides of the same coin, if you catch my drift.

But Nolan had it in his world. He chose a less fantastical approach with Joker, but it doesn't alter that both Jokers were treated seriously. Saying how they presented their clowny appearance is just the semantics again. They were both psychopaths in purple suits who embraced their clown appearance and called themselves Joker.

Quote:

I'm arguing that we could find about the same distance between Jack and Romero than Jack and Ledger.

I don't think you can. Romero's Joker was as child friendly in just about every way you can imagine.

Cannot say the same for Jack and Heath.

Quote:

I have heard in this very forum people saying that Jack's Joker was Romero's Joker hyped up. As you say, it's really subjective.

I'd love to hear their reasoning behind that one.

Quote:

The change's impressive. But big part of that was make-up alone. And big actor-character change doesn't mean anything by itself regarding the peformance.

Of course the make up really makes it complete, no denying that. But without the performance to compliment it, you're just yourself in a mask, or in this case make up.

Quote:

I misunderstood your words then. It sounded like you really didn't know that make-up can change your appearance in such a way that a pretty boy can look like a psycho. And he can become unrecognizable even if he doesn't move a muscle.

Physically yes, but if he started talking in his regular voice or behaved like he did normally then the illusion is shattered. That's why I say both compliment each other. You need the character altering acting to go with the make up to really transform.

Quote:

The whole character, yes.

But if you're talking about unrecognizable like in how you cannot distinguish Ledger's face, that's make-up.

No argument there.

Quote:

Because it was all smeared, had black messy circles around the eyes and that alone can make you look any face sinister. Plus we all have seen or imagined the classic psycho-clown ala John Wayne Gacy with the smeared make-up.

That's rubbish though. Gacy never killed anyone dressed as a clown. He just used to dress as a clown for birthday parties. He didn't go stalking his victims or murdering his victims in his clown attire.

The media just pooled around pics of him when he dressed as a clown for these birthday parties and somehow he got this phony rep as a killer clown.

They took an evil man and just promoted his image with a clown picture.

Quote:

I thought that was pretty well known.

I'm ashamed to say I didn't know it. I thought he was hired purely for the fact he was a high caliber actor who had previous quirky psycho characters on his acting resume.

Quote:

Physically altering himself and selling the performance are two completely different things. This other hypotetical beefed up actor I mentioned could have delivered a great acting. But, of course, we couldn't have admired how much he trained.

That's my point. It shows real chameleon acting to be able to do both. Make yourself look different from the norm and sell it with an acting performance.

Quote:

It's also a well known fact that Nicholson's performance was light years above Thurman's.

Of course, but you're missing the point. Looking like the comic book character doesn't automatically mean you were born to play it, or perfect for it.

Quote:

Which was the whole purpose of hiring him.

I know. That's the point being made here. Jack was essentially hired to be Jack in Joker attire.

Heath was hired to be the Joker. Not to sound like a broken record but that's why I was more impressed by Ledger and enjoy Ledger more.

He felt like the Joker. It was a character never seen before on screen. With Jack I saw shades of other roles he'd done in his career, not to mention I could see Jack himself.

Quote:

Plausible theory: The poster joined the forum back in November 2011. He probably wanted to say something about the subject and he looked for an already open thread about it before startying a new one.

I think a new thread would have been easier to make or just post in one of the Joker related threads of Batman 1989 thread instead of digging through 5 years worth of archives just make one simple post.

I just can't get my head around it. I get the feeling there was ulterior motives.

Quote:

As I remember it was you who has gotten highly interested as to why this thread was bumped after so many years, not me.

Yes, but I never called it fascinating, just curious.

Quote:

But then, this is like the umpteenth time this happens here at SHH, so I thought it was one of those things that wouldn't surprise anyone anymore no matter how odd could it look.

Weird things happen all the time. We still don't stop questioning why they are weird

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

If you were born to play the Joker then you should reveal yourself in the role.

Nicholson was born to play the Joker.

He was born in 1937. Before Joker was even invented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudgie

I get you, I just don't see much of a difference that's why I think there wasn't a big change about when he turned into Joker.

He only changed his voice, his entire appearance, his mannerisms, his laugh, his delivery...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

I know. That's the point being made here. Jack was essentially hired to be Jack in Joker attire.

Heath was hired to be the Joker. Not to sound like a broken record but that's why I was more impressed by Ledger and enjoy Ledger more.

He felt like the Joker. It was a character never seen before on screen. With Jack I saw shades of other roles he'd done in his career, not to mention I could see Jack himself.

It was more of a risk on the filmmaker's part to hire Ledger. Doesn't take away from Jack Nicholson, though. Both were hired to play the Joker and both did a great job. I prefer Nicholson's performance, but Ledger deserves all the praise he gets. I just don't agree with the oft-touted opinion that Nicholson was hired to play himself, and that is what he did. He played the Joker, just like Heath Ledger did. Different interpretations of the character, yet equally valid.

Quote:

I think a new thread would have been easier to make or just post in one of the Joker related threads of Batman 1989 thread instead of digging through 5 years worth of archives just make one simple post.

And then people jump down my throat because there already is a thread. Or a I'm accused of being a "thread digger". Not sure what the etiquette is. 5 years too old?

Quote:

I just can't get my head around it. I get the feeling there was ulterior motives.

I swear that I have not posted at this forum before Nov 2011. God's honest truth. Of course I cannot prove it, but that's just the way it is.

It was more of a risk on the filmmaker's part to hire Ledger. Doesn't take away from Jack Nicholson, though. Both were hired to play the Joker and both did a great job. I prefer Nicholson's performance, but Ledger deserves all the praise he gets. I just don't agree with the oft-touted opinion that Nicholson was hired to play himself, and that is what he did.

So just for clarification, you don't agree with El Payaso's claim that they chose Jack because Jack's general style was the kind of Joker they wanted? It's essentially Jack being Jack as it's so often phrased.

Quote:

And then people jump down my throat because there already is a thread.

LOL I don't think anyone even remembered this thread existed. We're talking 5 years. year old threads are generally forgotten, never mind 5 year old ones. Even I had forgotten it existed and I have a post in here from back in the day.

Quote:

Or a I'm accused of being a "thread digger". Not sure what the etiquette is. 5 years too old?

I'm not accusing you of any bad behavior. I clarified several times I was curious why you chose to bump up such an ancient thread. Yes, 5 years is very old for a forum thread that's never been used since back in early 2007.

Quote:

I swear that I have not posted at this forum before Nov 2011. God's honest truth. Of course I cannot prove it, but that's just the way it is.

Fair enough. I'm willing to take you at your word. We had some guy recently going back and forth getting accounts made and then banned.

The Hype brings out the suspicious side in you. People like to play funny buggers sometimes.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

So just for clarification, you don't agree with El Payaso's claim that they chose Jack because Jack's general style was the kind of Joker they wanted? It's essentially Jack being Jack as it's so often phrased.

I honestly don't know why they chose Jack. Except for Bob Kane and others pointing to 'The Shining'. So I think because of his performance in 'The Shining', that he became a strong contender for the role. Also, he's a huge bankable star (most likely the main reason). He wasn't the only actor they considered, though. There were a few others, I can't remember their names, though.

Quote:

LOL I don't think anyone even remembered this thread existed. We're talking 5 years. year old threads are generally forgotten, never mind 5 year old ones. Even I had forgotten it existed and I have a post in here from back in the day.

I'm not accusing you of any bad behavior. I clarified several times I was curious why you chose to bump up such an ancient thread. Yes, 5 years is very old for a forum thread that's never been used since back in early 2007.

I just did a search for "Nicholson" with the forum's search engine. I don't think I even checked the date.

Plus, he also had to play Jack Napier as well and make his performance different to that when he 'becomes' Joker.

On this subject, look at the Joker before and after his transformation. It's kind of interesting.

Jack killed people.
Joker killed people as a means of artistic and psychological expression.

Jack was vain.
Joker killed vain people with their own beauty products.

Jack idly wondered about taking over from Grissom at some point.
Joker blew Grissom (and, later, all of his buddies) away.

Jack was scared of Batman.
Joker was captivated by Batman and nearly killed him.

Jack placed strong importance on loyalty.
Joker killed his #1 guy.

Jack was mildly amused by the TV news.
Joker shot the TV.

It seems that the Joker was basically who Jack always was deep down inside, but his plunge into the acid brought it to the fore. The Joker is Jack with all constraints lifted and with no pretense towards fitting in with the rest of society. Every idle thought or fantasy Jack may have had become top priorities for the Joker. There were no more restraints, the Joker simply did whatever he wanted.

I don't even know why I even posted in this thread with such an elaborate comment in the first place. It's clear as day to me now that most people here would never bother to understand the evolution of cinematic acting. I feel like an idiot for wasting my time lol. **** this thread.

__________________I enjoy comic book adaptations but I'm a comic book fan first and foremost. Not a comic book movie fan.